If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Hmm, time for a new Hillary thread.

I don't want to be accused of bumping the last one, but I'm trying to keep the numbers down. So this one will make a handy place to argue about privacy rights, Carnivore, and the FISA laws as well.

Originally Posted by The Hill

GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping
Government surveillance will be at the forefront of the political debate this fall as congressional Democrats and President Bush square off over legislation allowing electronic spying on U.S. soil without a warrant.

Republicans are focusing on an allegation in a recent book by two Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, which suggests Clinton listened to a secretly recorded conversation between political opponents.

In their book about Clinton’s rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote: “Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.

For anyone keeping tabs, this not only is almost gospel truth, but also may prove to be felonious. To say nothing of hypocritical. There were constant rumors and strong allegations that the Clinton White House was not only targeting opponents for FBI and IRS investigations, but were also using Carnivore to snoop on citizens such as those in Christian groups.

However, aside from the 'do what I say but not what I do' routine, common to many politicians, does anyone really care that Gov't resources are used & abused in invading individual's privacy? It certainly doesn't seem so, since the only time people seem to get up in arms about this is when TEH EBIL BUSH/ITLER can be identified as involved in some fashion.

Seems to me, you posting this answers your own question? or do "people getting up in arms" only counts when the other camp does it?

I think what he's trying to say is that the general population of the U.S. doesn't seem to mind their privacy potentially being violated via ridiculous laws that don't seem to serve their intended purpose......maybe.

I think what he's trying to say is that the general population of the U.S. doesn't seem to mind their privacy potentially being violated via ridiculous laws that don't seem to serve their intended purpose......maybe.

I think its mainly the uninformed population that doesn't care about privacy violation. Well, unless it falls under 'we are doing it to protect you against terriosts' category. 'Cuz why not give up rights to 'save' your life from evil

Seems to me, you posting this answers your own question? or do "people getting up in arms" only counts when the other camp does it?

That's what I mean. For EFF types such as myself, this has always been a non-partisan outrage (I hear that for some, the outrage dates back to the Carter administration) but it seems like it has become nothing more than a ball of tar that gets thrown in politics in hopes that it sticks to someone.

So is it? Are people just as furious that Hillary conducted extensive, illegal spying on political opponents with Gov't resources as they are that Bush conducted extensive, <potentially> illegal spying on unknown people talking with probable terrorists? It certainly doesn't seem to be the case.